Christian rants about Hindu scriptures

[Sahasranama]

http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1410

[Arjuni]

Namast�,

This is very sad. The author writes clearly and has evidently put a lot of work into this essay; his education is obvious, and yet there's so much ignorance and logical fallacy here.

Leaving aside my knee-jerk "WTH IS THIS?!?!" reaction, the most glaring error in this work is summarised in the paragraph entitled Why the Bible Is Superior to Hindu Scripture. He writes that the total corpus of Hindu scripture is massive, abstruse, too loftily-written and overwhelming to be relevant to the average Hindu's life, and furthermore how the texts are difficult to understand, lacking clear translation (or even the ability for a clear translation to be made) and filled with contradiction.

Earlier in the essay, however, he has already contradicted those ideas in many places. One example comes from his discussion of the Vedas.
He writes:
The bulk of the songs in the Rig Veda are addressed to the chief gods Indra, Agni, and Soma as petitions for success in battle, protection, and material prosperity.
Well, that doesn't sound too complex or difficult to understand. Surely anyone can comprehend basic material needs and how people would naturally look to God to satisfy them.

But only one sentence before:
One could not pick up a copy of the Rig Veda and understand modern Hinduism or even the Vedic rituals without significant explanation.
So now they're confusing, too confusing to be comprehended without "significant explanation." Apparently the average Hindu is too dumb to understand what "protection" and "material prosperity" are without lots of studying.
He later proceeds to (wrongly!) interpret various passages from the Vedas and other sources as if he understands what they're talking about, yet provides no evidence that he himself has received any sort of instruction on these texts.

Someone should inform him that in matters of religion, the ability to think critically about the texts he studies is a crucial asset. Likely he doesn't even realise how much of the Bible he understands symbolically and figuratively because it's his own religion, and mystical thinking in one's home faith comes naturally and without conscious effort.

I wonder if he truly believes that millions of people would follow a religion based upon confusing, abstract stupidity, and revere "Hey, God, give us cows" as the highest level of divine revelation from the Absolute?

The depressing part is, he probably does. What a terrible waste of an intellect.

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

[sanjaya]

Leaving aside my knee-jerk "WTH IS THIS?!?!" reaction, the most glaring error in this work is summarised in the paragraph entitled Why the Bible Is Superior to Hindu Scripture. He writes that the total corpus of Hindu scripture is massive, abstruse, too loftily-written and overwhelming to be relevant to the average Hindu's life, and furthermore how the texts are difficult to understand, lacking clear translation (or even the ability for a clear translation to be made) and filled with contradiction.

It's funny he says this. One of my many complaints about Christianity is that the scripture is too short. You've basically got a large pamphlet (i.e. the New Testament) on which you're supposed to base an entire religion. There are four gospels which contain the same thing, and then a lot of letters with irrelevant correspondance to churches. Hindu Scripture contains large volumes of stories, which convey countless spiritual truths. Christianity, though based on Jesus, says next to nothing about him. You would think that given how important Jesus is, the founders of Christianity would bother to write a lot more about him than they ultimately did. If I were Christ's disciple, I would have written about every detail I could find from his birth until his resurrection (at this point most Christians will accuse me of thinking I'm smarter than God). Instead we get nothing but a small snapshot into his life. Why is there more information about King David in the Bible than there is about the Savior of all men?

But only one sentence before:
One could not pick up a copy of the Rig Veda and understand modern Hinduism or even the Vedic rituals without significant explanation.
So now they're confusing, too confusing to be comprehended without "significant explanation." Apparently the average Hindu is too dumb to understand what "protection" and "material prosperity" are without lots of studying.
He later proceeds to (wrongly!) interpret various passages from the Vedas and other sources as if he understands what they're talking about, yet provides no evidence that he himself has received any sort of instruction on these texts.

Well, you know. We're just a bunch of stupid Indians. Good thing it's the white man's burden to civilize us heathens.

Anyway Indraneela, great paraphrase of this guy's rant. Thank you!

[mohanty]

Well, you know. We're just a bunch of stupid Indians. Good thing it's the white man's burden to civilize us heathens.

That about sums it up. It's less of a Christian issue than it is a western issue. To sum up:

1. Hindu scripture is convoluted.
2. I don't get it.
3. How could anyone else?
4. Let us all praise the lord!

I guess the best way to respond is by saying that the Bible was written by and is meant for childish minds. Hindu scriptures were written by sages and are meant to elevate readers to that status.

[Arjuni]

Mohanty, Sanjaya - I actually laughed aloud at both of your posts, not because there's anything innately funny in this guy's perspective, but because you both made excellent points with which I completely agree. (Sort of the "funny because it's true" idea.)

Sanjaya, I too find the Bible astonishingly brief, and it's strange that the article-author should harp on supposed contradictions and irrelevancies in our scriptures. The Bible has many actual contradictions and different versions of events, as well as many archaic instructions that are not considered relevant by modern Christians. (I'm reminded of this argument, couched as a humorous letter.)

You're not the only one who would have been recording every minute detail, either. "Today THE SON OF GOD had some bread and an orange for lunch! With some butter on the bread! No, really, he was standing right next to me and actually ATE these things, and I SAW it! I saved the peel!!!"

At any rate, the author seems pleased that the Bible stands at a 6th to 12th grade reading level; the problem with this is that the Bible is Christianity's main and only text, and that there is only so much total wisdom able to be communicated with a limited vocabulary and complexity.

Hindu scriptures were written by sages and are meant to elevate readers to that status.
This I find elevating and inspiring.

Mohanty, you're quite correct in that it's a western issue. The author was reading with the purpose "let me look down from my lofty, superior vantage point, and see what sorts of religious natterings the heathens have compiled." It's the only possible way he could have missed the absurdity in his own writings. As one example, I read Rig Veda and see sacrifice, reciprocality, devotion, surrender, transcendence, delight, awe, mercy, and love. So I'm naturally curious as to what Biblical virtues he believes our texts are missing...

Oh, right, no Jesus. Darn.

Good thing it's the white man's burden to civilize us heathens.
Dammit! :checks own pasty skin, then checks watch, then whines:
Uh, anybody else got time to take over the 'civilizing'? I got texts to read! And they're lengthy and abstruse, so I might be reading for a while! :P

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

[mohanty]

I do sincerely believe that people are meant to outgrow religion (the way it is understood in western discourse) and seek a higher variety of fulfillment (through meditation, observation, and experimentation). That is the path of the seeker.

Instead, they get stuck in literal interpretation of myth and become adamant about it. This is like watching Matrix part 1 and becoming convinced that Neo was divine and awesome and spectacular. Hinduism is parts 2 and 3. It goes deeper and explains higher things. Then along comes a preacher like the one above and says the sequels are too stupid and we better stick to the special effects because they at least make sense.

In reality, the other two sequels are not meaningless. It's just that you are a ****ing idiot.

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste all,

Christianity, though based on Jesus, says next to nothing about him. You would think that given how important Jesus is, the founders of Christianity would bother to write a lot more about him than they ultimately did. If I were Christ's disciple, I would have written about every detail I could find from his birth until his resurrection (at this point most Christians will accuse me of thinking I'm smarter than God). Instead we get nothing but a small snapshot into his life.

Just more evidence that Jesus never existed!

That about sums it up. It's less of a Christian issue than it is a western issue. To sum up:

1. Hindu scripture is convoluted.
2. I don't get it.
3. How could anyone else?
4. Let us all praise the lord!

I guess the best way to respond is by saying that the Bible was written by and is meant for childish minds. Hindu scriptures were written by sages and are meant to elevate readers to that status.

Brilliant summation, Mohanty! This Yale intellectual can't attempt to understand the Vedas, fail at it, then say that his Bible is better. After all, Sanatana Dharma is a faith of personal experience and intuition over intellectualization.


Jai Sri Ram

[mohanty]

I had hopes once upon a time that fruitful dialogue between the Indian and the western ways was possible. But I no longer believe that is possible.

The western lens is too thick and too coloured. For a person like the above scholar to understand India, he needs to empty his head of all that he knows, all he believes, and all he has been told. Only then will he be able to see things in a reasonably proper light.

Because Hinduism has so vast a corpus of literature, it can pass judgment on the ways of the west. Western values are contained in Hinduism, like a lot of other ones as well. But to judge the Hindu path by looking at it from the Christian perspective is like a second grader judging a book on Quantum Mechanics. Even if the effort is sincere, the end result is always doomed to failure.

[Ramakrishna]

I had hopes once upon a time that fruitful dialogue between the Indian and the western ways was possible. But I no longer believe that is possible.

The western lens is too thick and too coloured. For a person like the above scholar to understand India, he needs to empty his head of all that he knows, all he believes, and all he has been told. Only then will he be able to see things in a reasonably proper light.

Because Hinduism has so vast a corpus of literature, it can pass judgment on the ways of the west. Western values are contained in Hinduism, like a lot of other ones as well. But to judge the Hindu path by looking at it from the Christian perspective is like a second grader judging a book on Quantum Mechanics. Even if the effort is sincere, the end result is always doomed to failure.

Namaste mohanty,

Exactly. Sanatana Dharma cannot be studied and analyzed from an Abrahamic worldview and mindset. This is really just like that guy on the other thread who thought he completely debunked Hinduism and Buddhism. This really applies to any of the Eastern faiths. If a westerner wants to study these faiths objectively and fairly, they just can't do so through the Abrahamic lens. Sometimes they do so deliberately and sometimes they inadvertently do so, and that's why you really need to know what you're doing and how you're approaching it. Sort of a self-analyzing process that must be undertaken before studying eastern faiths. Because really it is a completely different worldview and way of looking at things, and one needs to completely drop (at least temporarily) their old worldview and mindset in order to objectively study Sanatana Dharma.

To put it simply, it's like a bias that westerners have. And if they want to study Hinduism they need to get rid of that Abrahamic/western bias.

But the sad thing is that a lot of other westerners will listen to these "academics" and others who say they have studied Hinduism...and then they get nearly everything wrong and end up giving the wrong impression of the faith to people.

Jai Sri Ram

[mohanty]

Namaste mohanty,

Exactly. Sanatana Dharma cannot be studied and analyzed from an Abrahamic worldview and mindset. This is really just like that guy on the other thread who thought he completely debunked Hinduism and Buddhism. This really applies to any of the Eastern faiths. If a westerner wants to study these faiths objectively and fairly, they just can't do so through the Abrahamic lens. Sometimes they do so deliberately and sometimes they inadvertently do so, and that's why you really need to know what you're doing and how you're approaching it. Sort of a self-analyzing process that must be undertaken before studying eastern faiths. Because really it is a completely different worldview and way of looking at things, and one needs to completely drop (at least temporarily) their old worldview and mindset in order to objectively study Sanatana Dharma.

To put it simply, it's like a bias that westerners have. And if they want to study Hinduism they need to get rid of that Abrahamic/western bias.

But the sad thing is that a lot of other westerners will listen to these "academics" and others who say they have studied Hinduism...and then they get nearly everything wrong and end up giving the wrong impression of the faith to people.

Jai Sri Ram

Usually, when they say they have studied Hinduism, they mean that they have read what other westerners before them have understood through translations done with a dictionary.

If an Indian villager brought up in a proper village culture goes to America, lives there for six months, talks to people using a small translation book, and then comes back home and tells people about his impressions, I have no doubt his take will be less than academic. But this sort of thing goes on all the time in the west.

The only sort of Indian who will be able to GET what the west means is an Indian who is born and brought up there and is therefore a full and proper American. The only kind of westerner who will actually GET India and Hinduism is someone who has devoted his life to it.